Arguments

I think these labels are bad, because they can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, I can be classified as Far Right, as my political views only allow for a very tiny state and extremely wide individual rights. But some would classify me as Far Left, because, for example, I do not see gender as a factor in anything meaningful as far as social interactions go - transgender, cisgender, men, women, non-binary, etc. are all the same in my eyes; I do have sexual/romantic preferences, but I do not factor gender as such in them.

If by Far Left and Far Right you imply people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump respectively, then I would say that, while Far Left are worse and more damaging long-term, Far Right are very poisonous for societal health. Western Nations barely have the Far Right and Far Left presence on the global scale, given the existence of such nations as North Korea or Saudi Arabia that are really-really Far either way - but certain groups and individuals do make me wonder if Western people are slowly giving up on their liberal-democratic roots, choosing comfort and security over freedom and liberty. Then again, it might be Cicero's "Oh the times, oh the customs!" attitude I have developed over the last few years.

Regardless, in practical terms, I would prefer people like Donald Trump over people like Bernie Sanders to rule the country. The former are just incompetent clowns that target some social groups, but overall leave the system intact. The latter, however, have a potential to dismantle everything that has been built around here over the last several centuries. Free market is the cornerstone of modern developed nations, and if that is burned down, then nothing of value remains.

I think these labels are bad, because they can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, I can be classified as Far Right, as my political views only allow for a very tiny state and extremely wide individual rights. But some would classify me as Far Left, because, for example, I do not see gender as a factor in anything meaningful as far as social interactions go - transgender, cisgender, men, women, non-binary, etc. are all the same in my eyes; I do have sexual/romantic preferences, but I do not factor gender as such in them.

If by Far Left and Far Right you imply people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump respectively, then I would say that, while Far Left are worse and more damaging long-term, Far Right are very poisonous for societal health. Western Nations barely have the Far Right and Far Left presence on the global scale, given the existence of such nations as North Korea or Saudi Arabia that are really-really Far either way - but certain groups and individuals do make me wonder if Western people are slowly giving up on their liberal-democratic roots, choosing comfort and security over freedom and liberty. Then again, it might be Cicero's "Oh the times, oh the customs!" attitude I have developed over the last few years.

Regardless, in practical terms, I would prefer people like Donald Trump over people like Bernie Sanders to rule the country. The former are just incompetent clowns that target some social groups, but overall leave the system intact. The latter, however, have a potential to dismantle everything that has been built around here over the last several centuries. Free market is the cornerstone of modern developed nations, and if that is burned down, then nothing of value remains.

...except that Trump isn't Far Right by any means, he's barely Center Right. The Never-Trumpers claim to be Far Right.

They both are wrong. I agree with them both on certain issues, for example: I am conservative on gender roles. I think God and faith play a role, and have yet to understand changing genders, as god made me female, not some doctor. I don't bear anyone ill will, though, and agree with the left on end of life choice, eaarly abortion, birth control, and healthcare. I guess you can call me center left, but meh. I do not support acts of hate against anyone who disagrees with my views,as I want to be a vegan peace activist.

My view: Moderation in all things. I'm against abortion, but pro women's rights. I support immigration control, but not a wall.

You know, in the founding of our nation, no one seemed to care. Everyone was an immigrant or a second or third generation of settlers. But now, Trump and his followers claim that illegal immigration will cripple our country. The defining characteristic of America is that we believe everyone to be equal, but we refuse to let in impoverished Mexicans. When was the last time we got a terrorist from Mexico? We need not fear or reject them. Nor do I believe that Eastern refugees should be shut out. A careful screening process should take place, but we can not turn a blind eye to the suffering of the war while our troops are there.When we rescued Vietnamese before the invasion of the Southern capital, they ended up living here permanently, and we had nothing to fear from them, either.

My view: Moderation in all things. I'm against abortion, but pro women's rights. I support immigration control, but not a wall.

You know, in the founding of our nation, no one seemed to care. Everyone was an immigrant or a second or third generation of settlers. But now, Trump and his followers claim that illegal immigration will cripple our country. The defining characteristic of America is that we believe everyone to be equal, but we refuse to let in impoverished Mexicans. When was the last time we got a terrorist from Mexico? We need not fear or reject them. Nor do I believe that Eastern refugees should be shut out. A careful screening process should take place, but we can not turn a blind eye to the suffering of the war while our troops are there.When we rescued Vietnamese before the invasion of the Southern capital, they ended up living here permanently, and we had nothing to fear from them, either.

The defining characteristic of America is that we are a melting pot. The problem with Hispanic immigrants in general and specifically Mexican immigrants is that they don't melt into American society. They tend to settle along the US-Mexican border. This creates a borderland of people with divided loyalties. Borderlands are never good, see Gaza and Kashmir.

I know EXACTLY what hypocrisy is, I see leftists committing it ALL THE TIME, but you're right in this case, this is more an instance of projection.

And no fiction here, illegals won't even get picked up for drunk driving or grand larceny in leftist-controlled areas of the US.

TAPPER: Under a new sanctuary city law that you approved in October
2014, the city of New York shields from the feds undocumented immigrants
who commit what are deemed to be lesser offenses. But they include
drunk driving and grand larceny.

Why shouldn't the city of New
York comply with federal law in this area? If you're are a drunk
driver and you're an undocumented immigrant, why should there be a place
for you in this country?

DE BLASIO: Jake, there are 170
offenses in that law that are listed as serious and violent crimes that
lead to automatic cooperation between the city of New York and our
federal partners.

So, any serious and violent crime, we're
going to work with them. Someone commits a minor offense, for example,
right now, if you didn't have clear definitions like we have -- let's
say someone had a small amount of marijuana -- let's say someone went
through a stop sign -- they could be deported for that, and their family
could be torn apart.

And you could have children left behind
where the breadwinner in the family is sent back home to a home country.
That's not good for anyone.

So, we differentiate. Anyone
who is violent, anyone who is a serious threat to society, we agree we
will work with the federal partners and they get deported. But we are
not going to see, with a half-a-million undocumented people here -- this
would be true for 11 to 12 million undocumented folks in this country,
the vast majority of whom are law- abiding -- we are not going to see
families torn apart over a very minor offense.

TAPPER: But is grand larceny or drunk driving a very minor offense?

DE BLASIO: Drunk driving that does not lead to any other negative outcome, I could define as that.

And no fiction here, illegals won't even get picked up for drunk driving or grand larceny in leftist-controlled areas of the US.

Well if this is the hill you want to die on, lets take a look. You are trying to claim that is is an instance of the far-left treating illegal immigrants better than civilians in a manner comparable to ethnic cleansing.

Better than citizens: Nope. You're only focusing on the bits that support your argument and ignoring everything which shows you're wrong. They face massive disadvantages even in your own quote (risk of being thrown out of the country) as well as all the downsides not even touched on there like the little or no access to public services liek healthcare, housing, education - the risk of falling into human trafficking or sex trafficking when crossing borders, etc.

Comparable to ethnic cleansing: The idea that an illegal immigrant not getting arrested and thrown out the country for minor offences which don't harm anyone is comparable to ethnic cleansing is patently absurd. That you're reduced to this just shows how weak your argument is and supports my initial assessment that people complaining about the left-wing are essentially whiners with no real issues to raise.

let me run a little assessment that will tell me if you actually knew what the word hypocrite means.

Assessment stage 1: Was the subject able to use the word "hypocrite" correctly in a sentence. No.

End of assesment.

Marks: 0/1

Conclusion: You didn't even know what the word "hypocrite".

Hypocrite, like Pelosi, Schumer, 0bama, et al saying they're for border security why never promoting anything and fighting against it when someone finally does up something meaningful.

Well
if this is the hill you want to die on, lets take a look. You are
trying to claim that is is an instance of the far-left treating illegal
immigrants better than civilians in a manner comparable to ethnic
cleansing.

Better
than citizens: Nope. You're only focusing on the bits that support your
argument and ignoring everything which shows you're wrong. They face
massive disadvantages even in your own quote (risk of being thrown out
of the country) as well as all the downsides not even touched on there
like the little or no access to public services liek healthcare,
housing, education - the risk of falling into human trafficking or sex
trafficking when crossing borders, etc.

Comparable to ethnic
cleansing: The idea that an illegal immigrant not getting arrested and
thrown out the country for minor offences which don't harm anyone is
comparable to ethnic cleansing is patently absurd. That you're
reduced to this just shows how weak your argument is and supports my
initial assessment that people complaining about the left-wing are
essentially whiners with no real issues to raise.

ROFL, that's not what your poll says. Your poll doesn't even address the issue. This one does though;

“While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform,
there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities,” said
Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. “The public wants honest
immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and
that's very clear from the data.”

Also the poll you linked to is a push poll designed to sway voters rather than get there honest opinion. To get their opinion you're meant to phrase the question as neutrally as possible, not make sure to throw in fright words like 'illegal' and 'crimes' which radicalise poll opinion.

And little or no access to public services?!? This is an issue you clearly don't know much about.

It's too late dude, you used it multiple times incorrectly just in its thread. Finally being able to use it in the correct context after being called out on it multiple times is waaaaay too late.

I also corrected it as being a case of projection, which is really just a form of hypocrisy.

Let's add "reading basic written English" to the list of things you're not able to do!

"Half
of Americans, 50%, think sanctuary cities are needed to provide
services to undocumented immigrants while 41% say undocumented
immigrants should be deported, and therefore, there is no need for
sanctuary cities. 10% of Americans are unsure. On the question of
cutting federal funds to cities that provide sanctuary to undocumented
immigrants, 53% of U.S. residents oppose such a measure, 42% support
eliminating federal monies, and 5% are unsure."

Literally the second paragraph of the article I linked to!

Apparently you failed basic English. Nowhere in that quote does it mention ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS. I've already posted the findings as they pertain to ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS.You're English must be so bad that you couldn't comprehend it, but I'll post is again anyway;

“While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform,
there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities,” said
Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. “The public wants honest
immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and
that's very clear from the data.”

Also
the poll you linked to is a push poll designed to sway voters rather
than get there honest opinion. To get their opinion you're meant to
phrase the question as neutrally as possible, not make sure to throw in
fright words like 'illegal' and 'crimes' which radicalise poll opinion.

It was a Mark Penn poll. Mark Penn is a Dem operative, was a Slick Willie staffer, served as chief strategist to Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. If it was a push poll, then there is even LESS support for sanctuary cities.

"Hmm, who are worse? The people who want to let transgenders in the bathroom that doesn't match their sex

Oh, and the same people who will shame white straight men due to outside factors. Oh and they're supported by the mainstream media

or the people supporting ethnic cleansing?

Yeah, because SJWs and Feminazis don't want to kill all straight white men... Totally not like the #Killallmen thing existed... Let's completely ignore that

Oh, and Neo-Nazis don't have as much influence as the SJW's (or basically the far left) SJW's have Hollywood, leftist politicians and the mainstream media on their side, compared to Neo-Nazis... who have zero power.

"Far" denotes extreme, and we could use less of both. It would be nice if we could come together in the middle and ignore the extremists. I agree with Yeshuabought above, on the lenient liberal judges. It would be nice if the judges, including the SCOTUS judges, would lean a bit more to the majority's feelings, sometimes, rather than the letter of the law. I think justice is more what the majority thinks it is. For instance, I'm a liberal, but, Mussolini was hung upside down in a city square. A fellow worker of mine watched it. Justice. OF, BY, and FOR the people. (SOMETIMES, extreme isn't so bad).

The question is what constitutes "the middle", and it is different for every individual. In my world view, for example, "the middle", or the normal state of the society, is when the government has 0 involvement in anything that is not directly related to human rights. Any involvement of the government into economics, for example, is already too far to the left in my eyes. Far right would be a full-on anarchy with no government whatsoever, no legal system, no anything; essentially everyone does whatever they want to anyone else, as in the animal kingdom.

What is seen as the "middle" in the American politics, let alone in even more statist systems such as the European or the Japanese one, I see as a very-very-very far authoritarian extreme. Come together in the middle, with people who say things like "Well, I think we should allow people to do business not with 100,000, but only with 10,000 bureaucratic restrictions"? To me that is like asking a pacifist and a terrorist to come together on the grounds of "Terrorist attacks are okay, as long as the number of victims is less than 100" - do you think any pacifist will see this as a middle ground?

Politics is not some kind of sport, it is a playground on which the fates of people hang. I personally do not want to look for the "middle ground" as far as my fate is concerned; I want the best and the most for myself. I think it is more important to stay true to one's principles, than to compromise with those they fundamentally disagree with. A bit fewer politicians whose opinion changes daily with the current, and a bit more politicians who stay true to their beliefs even when 99.99% people strongly disagree with them - would do good for our country.

The defining characteristic of America is that we are a melting pot. The problem with Hispanic immigrants in general and specifically Mexican immigrants is that they don't melt into American society. They tend to settle along the US-Mexican border. This creates a borderland of people with divided loyalties. Borderlands are never good, see Gaza and Kashmir.

Ummm, where did you come up with the evidence to prove that Mexicans don't integrate? Every time a new culture of people begin immigrating into the US, they get accused of not integrating. Perhaps the reason YOU think they don't integrate is because YOU don't actually want them here anyway. How does one go about measuring how well a certain culture is or isn't integrating? This isn't something that can be measured. You've made a claim based solely on how you "feel", not on proven evidence. You wouldn't rely on my "feelings" or my claim that I work with a Mexican, and I don't live anywhere near the Mexican border(that's actually true). Why should anyone rely on your "feelings"?

Ummm, where did you come up with the evidence to prove that Mexicans don't integrate? Every time a new culture of people begin immigrating into the US, they get accused of not integrating. Perhaps the reason YOU think they don't integrate is because YOU don't actually want them here anyway. How does one go about measuring how well a certain culture is or isn't integrating? This isn't something that can be measured. You've made a claim based solely on how you "feel", not on proven evidence. You wouldn't rely on my "feelings" or my claim that I work with a Mexican, and I don't live anywhere near the Mexican border(that's actually true). Why should anyone rely on your "feelings"?

Here's my evidence;

Immigrants from other nations have to cross an ocean. While they may have created ethnic enclaves here and there they never had the numbers to become a dominant race. Hispanics are a different case altogether. No only are they here in much greater numbers than any of the past migrations, they primarily settle in the area along the border. As they do, they promote open borders policies, elect pro-immigrant officials, establish sanctuary cities, counties, states, etc. Of course Mexico is more than happy to assist this movement, which further divides the loyalties of these elected officials.

BTW, the red line on the map shows the area taken by the US during the Mexican–American War.

That's just a map with green colors that happen to be more prominent toward the southern border! It has no information whatsoever on what it's supposed to be showing! It could be a precipitation map of hurricane Harvey for all we know. Furthermore, if that were a map of people of Mexican heritage and where they reside, I challenge you to show a map that proves the same phenomenon isn't happening on the Northern US border, and that the majority of people with Canadian heritage living in the US do not mostly reside near the Northern US border. I also challenge you prove that this is a new trend. Prove to us that people of Mexican decent in the US weren't mostly situated in those regions 100 years ago. What is this map trying to prove as far as Mexican integration is concerned? Do the darker greens indicate less integration?!?!? You even stated yourself that they "elect pro-immigrant officials" which, if we were to hold any value in the claims that you make without any evidence and are only based on personal "feelings", then we could consider it proof that they are integrating and participating in our election process. There's no evidence in your argument that Mexicans aren't integrating, and that map you have has no evidence of anything, at least as far as this discussion goes.

***"Immigrants from other nations have to cross an ocean. While they may have created ethnic enclaves here and there they never had the numbers to become a dominant race."***

In my opinion, this is the most egregiously fallacious and uninformed aspect of your whole argument. It's saturated in wrongness. At first, I had trouble wrapping my brain around how wrong it is, it took me some time to untangle the intricate web of argumentative wrongdoing that has occurred here. First off, Mexicans aren't a race, they're a heritage. Spanish, isn't even a race, it's a language that is spoken by different cultures and races, just as English is. Secondly, on the topic of race, to suggest that the US isn't populated by Caucasians more so than any other race is obviously wrong. I think what you're trying to suggest is that Mexicans are becoming the dominant "race" in the US, and you (erroneously) classify them as a race, but when you point to any other sectors of society, you only classify them in their respective cultural lineage, not their racial denomination. It would be an understatement to say that, that's an inconsistent argument is an understatement! Thirdly, you fail to provide any evidence that Mexican immigration somehow dwarfs the size and scope of any other immigration circumstances in the US. Are you claiming that Mexican emigration to the US is happening at a faster rate than any other mass immigration to the US, and if so, where's your evidence? Lastly, even if you were to prove that Mexican immigration is happening on a larger and faster scale, what does any of this have to do with their integrating habits? To prove that Mexicans are emigrating at a faster pace than any other cultural group, doesn't prove anything as far as their ability or willingness to integrate is concerned. Please let us know if you actually come up with convincing evidence which demonstrates that Mexicans aren't integrating into American society. Thanx.

That's just a map with green colors that happen to be more prominent toward the southern border! It has no information whatsoever on what it's supposed to be showing! It could be a precipitation map of hurricane Harvey for all we know. Furthermore, if that were a map of people of Mexican heritage and where they reside, I challenge you to show a map that proves the same phenomenon isn't happening on the Northern US border, and that the majority of people with Canadian heritage living in the US do not mostly reside near the Northern US border. I also challenge you prove that this is a new trend. Prove to us that people of Mexican decent in the US weren't mostly situated in those regions 100 years ago. What is this map trying to prove as far as Mexican integration is concerned? Do the darker greens indicate less integration?!?!? You even stated yourself that they "elect pro-immigrant officials" which, if we were to hold any value in the claims that you make without any evidence and are only based on personal "feelings", then we could consider it proof that they are integrating and participating in our election process. There's no evidence in your argument that Mexicans aren't integrating, and that map you have has no evidence of anything, at least as far as this discussion goes.

Oh, sorry, I thought you had at least an ounce of sense. Boy did you prove me wrong. Does this spell it out better for you?

The Canadians!? Seriously??? You're going to try to compare 11.3
million Mexicans to 783,000 Canadians??? You steadfastly refuse to see
reality. Prove this isn't a new trend? If you haven't been following
the issue closely enough to know it isn't you shouldn't be in the
debate.

If you think electing officials who are as loyal (or more loyal) to foreign nations as they are to the US is "proof that they are integrating and participating in our election process", you should take some remedial civics lessons.

***"Immigrants from other nations have to cross an ocean. While they may have created ethnic enclaves here and there they never had the numbers to become a dominant race."***

In my opinion, this is the most egregiously fallacious and uninformed aspect of your whole argument. It's saturated in wrongness. At first, I had trouble wrapping my brain around how wrong it is, it took me some time to untangle the intricate web of argumentative wrongdoing that has occurred here. First off, Mexicans aren't a race, they're a heritage. Spanish, isn't even a race, it's a language that is spoken by different cultures and races, just as English is. Secondly, on the topic of race, to suggest that the US isn't populated by Caucasians more so than any other race is obviously wrong. I think what you're trying to suggest is that Mexicans are becoming the dominant "race" in the US, and you (erroneously) classify them as a race, but when you point to any other sectors of society, you only classify them in their respective cultural lineage, not their racial denomination. It would be an understatement to say that, that's an inconsistent argument is an understatement! Thirdly, you fail to provide any evidence that Mexican immigration somehow dwarfs the size and scope of any other immigration circumstances in the US. Are you claiming that Mexican emigration to the US is happening at a faster rate than any other mass immigration to the US, and if so, where's your evidence? Lastly, even if you were to prove that Mexican immigration is happening on a larger and faster scale, what does any of this have to do with their integrating habits? To prove that Mexicans are emigrating at a faster pace than any other cultural group, doesn't prove anything as far as their ability or willingness to integrate is concerned. Please let us know if you actually come up with convincing evidence which demonstrates that Mexicans aren't integrating into American society. Thanx.

Why do you go off on this idiotic tangent? I clearly said Hispanics, not Mexicans, not Spanish. Certainly Hispanics ARE becoming the dominant race in certain areas of the US, primarily along the US-Mexican border. That's what the maps and the data illustrate. As for them not integrating, that's a logical consequence, as I've already illustrated. It's a pretty good indication that people who come into the US waving foreign flags aren't serious about integrating. You think I'm wrong? Then prove it. Find your own links and post your own data, something more compelling than your opinion.

Again, Spanish is not a race, it's a language spoken by many different cultures and different races. Prove to us that Spanish is a race, I know you won't find evidence to prove that Spanish is a race!!! Where do those Canadians live, I'm gonna take a stab at it and say they're near the Canadian border. I live near the Canadian border and I notice Canadian flags being waved all the time. In Maine, it's more prominent than the American flag. I wonder if you're going to call them out on that and accuse them of not integrating? No, you won't, because Canadians aren't part of the Spanish race. "The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race" and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity." Please, fruit loop, Spanish ain't a race.

Hello, since when did showing where the majority of Mexicans reside in the United States, prove that they don't integrate? I pointed out in my last post that even if you did show where Mexicans mostly reside in the US, that doesn't prove that they're not integrating, it just shows that most Mexicans in the US live near the Mexican border. Gee, that must have been a tough one to prove. Notice you still didn't show that most Canadians living in the US don't live near the Canadian border. If most Canadians live near the Canadian border, does that mean they're not integrating? All you have to show that Mexicans don't integrate is because they wave Mexican flags?!?!? I thought I told you to let us know if you actually come up with convincing evidence, what happened there?

All we ever get from you is arguments based on your feelings, not factually based evidence. Find a way to prove to us that Mexicans or Spanish people aren't integrating without using your "feelings". Your "feelings" mean nothing to us, how do we know you're not a troll bot that's been programmed in Moscow? How do we know you're not a liar? Factually based evidence will be convincing, not the word of some person who uses the tea party emblem as a avatar on a debate page.

I do not think it is a secret that the vast majority of immigrants from pretty much anywhere do not want to integrate completely. It is human nature: most of us tend to cling to the environment we have been exposed to for a long time. People like me, who simply throw their past in a basket and move on, are very rare. A very-very small minority of immigrants, for example, speak their new country's language more than their old language: most native Spanish speakers will mostly speak Spanish, hang out with other Spanish speakers, watch Spanish TV channels, etc.

It is definitely not a good thing - but, as an immigrant, I see it as bad, first and foremost, for the immigrants themselves. They miss on a lot of opportunities the First World offers, and closing themselves in the environment dominated by other immigrants like them is going to have very negative long-term effects on their personal success.

It is another matter that building walls and banning all immigration from multiple countries does not exactly make for a positive change in this regard. What does is a welcoming attitude based on open-mindedness and acceptance. The US used to have this attitude, but 9/11 really broke this country's spirit in this regard.

In Canada, Japan, Australia, even Spain - the border control officers always greeted me with smiles and friendly chit-chat. The US TSA officers, however, keep greeting everyone - native-born citizens included - with intense look and interrogation. For all its positive sides, the US surely lags behind many civilized countries when it comes to guest reception.

Again, Spanish is not a race, it's a language spoken by many different cultures and different races. Prove to us that Spanish is a race, I know you won't find evidence to prove that Spanish is a race!!! Where do those Canadians live, I'm gonna take a stab at it and say they're near the Canadian border. I live near the Canadian border and I notice Canadian flags being waved all the time. In Maine, it's more prominent than the American flag. I wonder if you're going to call them out on that and accuse them of not integrating? No, you won't, because Canadians aren't part of the Spanish race. "The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race" and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity." Please, fruit loop, Spanish ain't a race.

Hello, since when did showing where the majority of Mexicans reside in the United States, prove that they don't integrate? I pointed out in my last post that even if you did show where Mexicans mostly reside in the US, that doesn't prove that they're not integrating, it just shows that most Mexicans in the US live near the Mexican border. Gee, that must have been a tough one to prove. Notice you still didn't show that most Canadians living in the US don't live near the Canadian border. If most Canadians live near the Canadian border, does that mean they're not integrating? All you have to show that Mexicans don't integrate is because they wave Mexican flags?!?!? I thought I told you to let us know if you actually come up with convincing evidence, what happened there?

Again, YOU brought up Spanish. YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT SPANISH, ROMP ROAST!!!! Put your strawman away, I said Hispanics.

Your myopic observations about the Canadian border aside, as I have already pointed out, Canadians make up only a mere fraction of the US population, and there hasn't been any significant change to their immigration rate. Canadians are not flooding into the US. If they ever do, then we'd need to take a new look at the issue. American immigrants make up a much larger percentage of the Canadian population than Canadian immigrants do the US population. There are small enclaves on both sides of the border. The same cannot be said of Mexicans and Mexico. Mexicans make up a significant portion of the US population.

How dense do you have to be to believe immigrants waving around Mexican flags means they're integrating? Maybe you'll listen to survey analyses;

Most Mexican Americans identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican American," even into the fourth generation. Only about 10 percent identified as "American." Moreover, many Mexican Americans felt their ethnicity was very important and many said they would like to pass it along to their children.

Does that spell out the blatantly obvious for you? Hispanics settle on the border and don't integrate into American society. No other race does this. It is a recipe for disaster.

All we ever get from you is arguments based on your feelings, not factually based evidence. Find a way to prove to us that Mexicans or Spanish people aren't integrating without using your "feelings". Your "feelings" mean nothing to us, how do we know you're not a troll bot that's been programmed in Moscow? How do we know you're not a liar? Factually based evidence will be convincing, not the word of some person who uses the tea party emblem as a avatar on a debate page.

A better example of projection would be hard to imagine. I post links and graphs to back up my position. You just choose to ignore them. You NEVER post anything, at least nothing relevant, to back up your position. Just your "feelings" and moronic false equivalencies. Try posting some evidence to support your position sometime. Factually based evidence will be convincing, not the word of some leftist loon who uses a mushroom cloud as an avatar on a debate page. And Moscow?!? Seriously??? How far to the left to you have to be to believe that crap?

It would be the perfect cover for you to pretend your a hardened American Nationalist, if you were actually a Russian troll bot. In fact, I'd say there's no evidence to suggest you're not a bot. Your tendency to hurl disinformation and use divisive language, I think I'm really on to something here. Oh my gosh, we gotta real genuine spy here folks. Watch what you say around CYD, (if that's his real name. I bet it's something real scary like Fyodor).

Oh, my bad. You were talking about Hispanics, not Spanish people. That changes the whole dynamic of this discussion. My bizzle. No really, it changes nothing. The same rule applies when it comes to Hispanics, they're not a race. "Hispanic" is an umbrella term used to describe people of Spanish decent. According to the census bureau, the Hispanics that live to in the US are made up of six different races. The largest portion of Hispanics are of the white race, so don't worry Fyodor, they're actually your kind. I'll bet a lot of them listen to country music. To be honest, if I were an immigrant in the US, and I heard the swill that they're trying to pass off as country music, I would contemplate going back to Syria if need be. Yucky!! That stuff makes me break out in hives. And I'm not talking about polka, Fyodor. I'm talking about country, or what Tom Petty described as "bad rock bands with fiddles".

Thanks for clearing up any confusion with the map, now if you wouldn't mind telling us exactly what it has to do with anything, we would really get an idea of it's value. You still didn't show us that most Canadians living in the US don't live near the Canadian border. You also didn't show us that where most Hispanics in the US reside, is a new trend. If I remember correctly (which I do), it was you who pointed out that most Hispanics living in the US reside in the area that was taken by the US after the war with Mexico. So, that would suggest that most Hispanics living in the US have lived in those areas, at least as far back as the war with Mexico. Again, what does any of this have to do with Hispanics and their willingness to integrate?

I don't know if the study done by the UCLA was something that you wanted to post. It kinda suggests the opposite of what you're saying. Like for instance, third and fourth generation Mexican American families speak English fluently, and they prefer American music(sadly, I bet that means country, but I digress). More and more are becoming Protestants and voting for Republicans. It does say that Mexican Americans are adamant about passing on their language and knowledge of their heritage to the next generation. I don't find that to be out of the ordinary when it comes to other immigrant populations living in the US. I'll bet ol' Fyodor has taught little Boris and Natasha how to play the accordion and fiddle. All immigrant people in the US, teach their kids about their heritage. It's nothing different with Hispanics.

Obviously this is the case for Puerto Ricans; it is a given. As for the other two notions, they do not really refute anything I have said: I was talking about new arrivals, that is first generation immigrants. Later generations integrate much better naturally.

In our integrated/integrating immigrant circles, we often imply the following unspoken pattern when talking about the majority of immigrants:

Obviously this is a general pattern, and does not apply to every single case. I barely speak my native language any more (have not used it much in the last 5 years), and I am a 1st generation immigrant. On the other hand, I once met a guy who was a descendant of Russian immigrants back from the middle of the 19th century, and he still speaks Russian and hangs out with some other Russian speakers. There is a lot of variation when it comes to individual immigrants and descendants of immigrants.

It also really depends on the country of departure and the country of arrival. A Canadian will much more eagerly and easily integrate in the US, than an Indian in Japan, for example. Sometimes the cultures are so different that integration might not even be desirable; for example, I would love to go and work in Japan for a couple of years, but I definitely would not want to integrate into their society, because it is too collectivist and conformist to my taste, and I would need to reject my nature to do so.

Mexicans and Americans are not very different in this cultural regard, relative to some other combinations, so I would expect Mexicans to integrate pretty well. Cubans or Venezuelans, for example, would be another matter... And North Koreans - let us not even go in there.